Gonzo
The Living Force
This is an article from the LA Times that reports on a recent court decision by the Criminal Court of the City of New York over the ownership of tweets (comments made on the Twitter platform) and privacy rights. It pertains to a case against Occupy Wall Street activist, Malcolm Harris, w.r.t. his arrest for disorderly conduct resulting from marching on the Brooklyn Bridge during a protest.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-ny-judge-twitter-at-odds-over-who-owns-your-tweets-20120702,0,2066118.story
This portion of the court case pertains to the District Attorney's belief that Harris' tweets would demonstrate Harris had clear knowledge that police had ordered demonstrators not to cross the bridge - and that he knowingly broke the law.
While Twitter's terms of use demonstrate the company's opinion that all user content belongs to the owner and is therefore afforded certain privacy protections, it appears the court felt otherwise: that Twitter owns the content and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. While this might seem obvious, that a person cannot claim privacy to comments made in a public venue, such issues related to privacy are actually a hot topic in privacy and legal circles (especially within the risk-averse legal departments of various organizations in both the private and public sectors considering their first ventures into social media).
The actual decision, can be reviewed at the state's court website, Under People v Harris: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_22175.htm
A copy of Twitter's motion to quash a subpoena issued to Twitter by the District Attorney calling for the production of "[a]y and all user information, including email address, as well as any and all tweets posted for the period of 9/15/2011-12/31/2011" for the Twitter account @destructuremal, the account allegedly used by Harris, can be seen at: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/Twitter-Motion_to_Quash.pdf
The court's decision on the motion to quash can be seen at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/owsharristwitterdec63012.pdf
While there are many angles to this story, one interesting angle is that no matter what a user feels is covered by a service provider's license agreement or terms of use, the courts may feel otherwise. Users may end up with a false sense of security that the agreements between them and their service providers are somehow protected and would always be in alignment with the perspectives of the courts. As well, this decision will most likely be used as precedent for other cases, both in the United States, but also in other jurisdictions that have not yet set precedent in these areas.
Gonzo
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-ny-judge-twitter-at-odds-over-who-owns-your-tweets-20120702,0,2066118.story
This portion of the court case pertains to the District Attorney's belief that Harris' tweets would demonstrate Harris had clear knowledge that police had ordered demonstrators not to cross the bridge - and that he knowingly broke the law.
While Twitter's terms of use demonstrate the company's opinion that all user content belongs to the owner and is therefore afforded certain privacy protections, it appears the court felt otherwise: that Twitter owns the content and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. While this might seem obvious, that a person cannot claim privacy to comments made in a public venue, such issues related to privacy are actually a hot topic in privacy and legal circles (especially within the risk-averse legal departments of various organizations in both the private and public sectors considering their first ventures into social media).
The actual decision, can be reviewed at the state's court website, Under People v Harris: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_22175.htm
A copy of Twitter's motion to quash a subpoena issued to Twitter by the District Attorney calling for the production of "[a]y and all user information, including email address, as well as any and all tweets posted for the period of 9/15/2011-12/31/2011" for the Twitter account @destructuremal, the account allegedly used by Harris, can be seen at: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/Twitter-Motion_to_Quash.pdf
The court's decision on the motion to quash can be seen at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/owsharristwitterdec63012.pdf
While there are many angles to this story, one interesting angle is that no matter what a user feels is covered by a service provider's license agreement or terms of use, the courts may feel otherwise. Users may end up with a false sense of security that the agreements between them and their service providers are somehow protected and would always be in alignment with the perspectives of the courts. As well, this decision will most likely be used as precedent for other cases, both in the United States, but also in other jurisdictions that have not yet set precedent in these areas.
Gonzo
